Liverpool Street Hub appeal wins digital screen consent

A Liverpool Street Hub appeal has succeeded on both planning permission and digital-advertising consent after an inspector found that a replacement communications kiosk would fit a busy local shopping centre. The decision, issued on 9th October 2026, concerns the footway outside 12 Utting Avenue East.

Liverpool City Council refused the Street Hub and its two illuminated screens, but the Planning Inspectorate allowed both appeals. The inspector considered the width of the pavement, the existing street furniture and the commercial setting decisive, while imposing controls on the brightness and behaviour of the advertisements.

The result is relevant well beyond one roadside structure. It illustrates how an advertisement proposal can be acceptable where it replaces existing equipment, yet still require a separate assessment of visual amenity, safety, accessibility and precise lighting limits.

Liverpool Street Hub appeal: two decisions, one location

Inspector C Harding determined planning appeal 6010480 and advertisement appeal 6010482 in a combined letter dated 9th October 2026. The applicant was BT Telecommunications PLC, represented by Verity Cheyne. The underlying Liverpool planning reference was 25F/2940 and the advertisement application was 25A/2939.

The physical proposal is a single BT Street Hub, about three metres high and approximately 1.2 metres wide, replacing one existing telephone kiosk near the junction of Utting Avenue East, Broadway and Townsend Avenue. It would incorporate two internally illuminated digital LCD advertising screens.

In allowing the first appeal, the inspector granted planning permission for the new hub and the associated removal of the existing kiosk. The second appeal granted express consent for the screens. These are separate legal consents even though their physical and visual effects overlap.

The advertisement consent lasts five years from the decision date; the planning permission contains a condition requiring commencement within three years. Those different periods must not be confused with the lifetime of the structure itself.

Why the street could accommodate the hub

The location is not a quiet residential pavement. The inspector described a busy junction of two dual carriageways near an elevated bridge, alongside the Broadway shopping parade. The existing streetscape includes tall lampposts, a litter bin, a planter, e-scooter parking and an older telephone kiosk.

Although the new equipment would be wider and taller than the kiosk it would replace, it would also be comparatively slim when seen from an angle. Its height was not clearly demonstrated as necessary, but against the bridge and other vertical street furniture it would not appear excessively prominent.

The pavement’s generous width also mattered. The inspector found that the hub and advertisements would not dominate the scene or amount to unacceptable street clutter. Informal footway parking observed at the visit was too variable to justify assuming a permanently congested public realm.

Most importantly, the old kiosk would be removed. In the Liverpool Street Hub appeal, the inspector treated replacement of ageing infrastructure as an improvement rather than simply introducing an extra object. A condition requires the existing kiosk to be removed completely and the ground made good within three months of the new development starting.

Digital advertisement controls: brightness and movement

The Liverpool Street Hub appeal is particularly useful on luminance. Liverpool sought a daytime limit of 600 candela per square metre and a night-time limit of 300 candela per square metre. The inspector considered those figures insufficiently justified by the evidence presented.

The approved conditions instead cap the screens at 2,500 cd/m² during daylight and 600 cd/m² during twilight and night, by reference to official lighting-up times. The decision refers to the Institution of Lighting Professionals’ PLG 05/23 guidance, which recommends a night-time limit for smaller illuminated advertisements.

Brightness is not the only relevant control. The screens must show static, two-dimensional images. They must not display animation, video or moving pictures, nor carry messages extending across more than one screen image.

Images cannot change more often than every ten seconds, and each transition must be instantaneous. Intermittent illumination is prohibited. The inspector regarded these restrictions as necessary near a complex junction to reduce potential distraction.

For applicants, the lesson is not that 2,500 cd/m² will always be permitted. The appropriate limit depends on the evidence, context, size, location and applicable guidance. Councils should explain why any proposed alternative is necessary and proportionate rather than relying on an unsupported figure.

Advertisement consent has a narrower legal test

Advertising control in England operates under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. In deciding the advertisement appeal, the inspector emphasised that control may be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety.

The development plan can inform those considerations, but compliance with a local policy is not itself the decisive legal test for an advertisement appeal. The inspector considered the commercial signs already present along Broadway and the streetlighting near the junction when concluding that the proposed displays would not harm amenity.

Planning Geek’s advertisement consent guide explains when express consent is required. Our deemed consent guide distinguishes displays that can operate within the statutory classes without a separate application.

Operators should not assume that consent to build a communications hub automatically authorises its advertising panels. In this case both appeals succeeded, but each required its own justification.

Accessibility and equality duties were considered

Highway objections raised concerns about people with restricted mobility. Although that point was not part of Liverpool’s formal planning refusal reason, the inspector considered the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The duty requires decision-makers to have due regard to relevant equality considerations, including the needs of disabled people and people within certain age groups. It does not impose a universal ban on new street furniture, but the actual impact on access needs to be assessed.

Here, the width of the footway and removal of the existing telephone kiosk helped the proposal. The inspector concluded that the new hub would not be an impediment to pavement users or have a disproportionate effect on people sharing a protected characteristic.

That reasoning is location-specific. A similar hub on a narrower pavement, beside a crossing or in an area with very different pedestrian conditions could be judged differently. A carefully drawn site plan should show clear widths, other furniture and the position of replacement equipment.

Which planning policies carried weight?

The inspector found the hub consistent with Liverpool Local Plan policies UD3, UD9 and SP3, which address shopping environments, public realm and visual clutter. For the advertisements, policy UD9 supported the assessment of amenity, without displacing the statutory advertising-control test.

The decision also applied the National Planning Policy Framework published in August 2026. Policies CO1 and DP3 were relevant to the design and visual impact of telecommunications infrastructure and the creation of well-designed places. The inspector also referred to decision-making policy S3 when applying the development plan.

Those national provisions and their new policy labels are important when relying on the Liverpool Street Hub appeal. Applicants should use the current Framework rather than quoting superseded paragraph numbering from an older edition.

The inspector did not find other material considerations sufficient to justify a different outcome. Planning permission and advertisement consent were therefore both allowed.

Practical consequences for street equipment operators

The Liverpool Street Hub appeal does not establish a general presumption in favour of illuminated advertising kiosks. It demonstrates that replacement, context, pavement width and controlled screen operation can be decisive when properly evidenced.

A robust application should distinguish the planning merits of the physical structure from the amenity and safety effects of its advertisements. It should accurately describe how many existing kiosks will be removed, because the inspector corrected the application’s reference to multiple payphones: only one kiosk was actually proposed for removal.

Technical details should explain daytime and night-time luminance, change intervals, static-image restrictions and visibility near roads and crossings. High-quality plans and photographs of the real streetscape help decision-makers judge visual dominance without relying on generic assumptions.

Read the combined Planning Inspectorate decision (PDF), hosted by Planning Geek, covering planning appeal 6010480 and advertisement appeal 6010482, and the official appeal record. The Appealbase decision text also brings the two determinations together. These are inspector appeals, not court case law.